How are we going to pay for this?

These letters to the editor of the WSJ talk about Clinton and O'Bama, but it's most definitely a non-partisan issue. All these candidates you are so giddy about (Super Tuesday - Weeee!) make all sorts of promises. How are we going to pay for it?

And no, you can't use "stop the war"... The 2009 budget has a trillion dollar deficit and the war isn't even included.

So all you politicalnicks - from both parties - who are so interested in the Presidential race, please explain how all these programs are going to be paid for.

You would think a candidate running for president granted half a page in the Journal would take the opportunity to make his or her case before the American people. Instead, Sen. Hillary Clinton's "My Plan for Shared Prosperity," and Sen. Barack Obama's cheerleaders touting "The Obama Opportunity" (Feb. 4) offer us nothing but vague promises.

Mrs. Clinton promises: a "comprehensive solution to our housing crisis," an "aggressive plan to lower health-care costs," to provide health-care coverage for all Americans, to restore "America as the world's innovation superpower," but she never says how she intends to accomplish any of this. She promises to provide each tax-paying American with a $1,000 tax cut to put in their retirement plan, enact a universal preschool, invest in mentoring programs for at-risk middle schoolers, raise the minimum wage, expand the Earned Income Tax Credit, solve the homeless problem, "provide health-care coverage for all Americans," and rebuild New Orleans.
But she never tells us how she is going to pay for all this.

Mr. Obama has a plan to "give all of our children a world-class education from early childhood through college," develop new sources of energy, end our addiction to oil, and end the war in Iraq. But there was nothing about how it would be done. This critique paragraph is shorter because Mr. Obama's cheerleaders (governors all, no less) spent their space cheering for change without telling us what the change would be or how it would come about.

Let us not be fooled. The candidates thus far have nothing substantial to offer us. The problems we face are huge, and the candidates not only seem to have no clue, but no real plan. It is a shame our nation lacks real leaders who will say plainly and forcefully: "This is what we ought to do, this is what we are going to do, and this is how we are going to get it done." It's a greater shame that we lack the intellectual and moral fortitude to vote for such a plain-speaking person.

We are about to get the government we deserve.

Mike Tune
Annandale, Va.

Hillary Clinton laments the high costs of energy, health care and education; she speaks in her op-ed of having a "plan" to bring shared prosperity and help with these essentials to millions of Americans. We can all agree with her goal; what we doubt is her method of achieving her goals. Mrs. Clinton's prescription for every lament is more government spending and more government interference in the free market. This is exactly the opposite of what should be done. The reason health care is so expensive is that there is pumped-up demand (partly caused by government handouts) and a reduced supply (again partly caused by government, which restricts competition and protects the trial lawyers). The law of supply and demand says you have to reduce demand or increase supply to bring down the cost. Her government-centered plan will do neither. The same holds for energy and education. In both, demand is high and supply is failing to keep up; hence rising prices. The prescription is more supply, more competition, a larger, freer market.

How will she pay for her plans? Repeal the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy and all will be solved. Wrong. The Bush tax cuts were not a break for the wealthy; they were an incentive for capital investment, which is essential to increasing supply in the private sector. The only way we will get the increase in supply and competition we need to ensure a freer, less expensive marketplace is through capital investment and risk taking on the part of investors. We need more marginal rate cuts and ultimately an end to the income tax, not higher tax rates to remain competitive in a smaller world.

Entrenched interests typically want less competition. They favor government interference because it limits new entrants that could increase supply, reduce prices, take market share or reduce their profits. The history of the Clintons (and Bushes) is to curry favor from and reward those entrenched interests, whether they be oil companies or the teachers unions. Shared prosperity is well within our grasp from a free market less encumbered from government. We will not get there with Mrs. Clinton.

From the story:
It Ain't the Economy, Stupid
Why no president can control our $14 trillion engine

...We have a $14 trillion economy. The idea that presidents can control it lies between an exaggeration and an illusion. Our presidential preferences ought to reflect judgments about candidates' character, values, competence and their views on issues where what they think counts: foreign policy; long-term economic and social policy -- how they would tax and spend; health care; immigration. Forget the business cycle.

From the story:
It Ain't the Economy, Stupid
Why no president can control our $14 trillion engine

...We have a $14 trillion economy. The idea that presidents can control it lies between an exaggeration and an illusion. Our presidential preferences ought to reflect judgments about candidates' character, values, competence and their views on issues where what they think counts: foreign policy; long-term economic and social policy -- how they would tax and spend; health care; immigration. Forget the business cycle.

Click to expand...

One of the republican candidates promised to "bring good jobs back to detroit". Hillary and Obama are making all sorts of crazy promises in the letters posted.

That's what frustrates me.. why do people get so excited about the candidates and the process, when its all bullshit?

A change in political leaders means that one set of lobbyists move out, and another move in.